The court has the power to reduce the upset price, but it must do so after considering all the relevant factors and after making an enquiry to determine the proper upset price.

The revision petition by the judgement debtor is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Kancheepuram, by which he granted the application of the decree-holder and reduced the upset price of the property advertised for sale to Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Admittedly, in execution of a money decree, the judgement-debtor's agricultural property which consists of 8 small pieces of agricultural lands totalling 4.34 acres was attached. In execution proceedings commenced by E.P. 37 of 1980 which was renumbered as E.P. No. 112 of 1981, the sale was advertised for 27th July, 1981, but was adjourned at the instance of the judgement debtor as he paid a part of the amount.

3. We are not concerned with the two or three other occasions when the sale was adjourned from time to time, but it needs to be mentioned that when the sale was due to be held on 27th July, 1981, the sale did not go through on account of the absence of the bidders. At that time, the upset price was fixed by the Court at Rs. 60,600/-. The decree-holder, finding that her attempt to sell the property was not bearing fruits, applied for reduction of the upset price. At one stage, she herself had given the value of the property as Rs. 15000/-. However, in the application for reduction of the upset price, she asked for Rs. 10,000/- to be fixed as the upset price. The principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram, made a summary order reducing the upset price to Rs. 10,000. It is this order which is challenged by the judgement-debtor in this revision petition.

4. Though initially a question was raised in the course of the arguments as to whether, having regard to the fact that a new proviso has been added in O.21, R.66, C.P.C. the local amendment made in the form of Sub-cl. (d-1) in O.21, R.66(2) which made it obligatory on the court to mention the upset price fixed by the Court in the sale proclamation, ceased to be effective, having regard to the facts of the present case, it does not appear necessary to go into this wider question. Order 21, R.66(2), C.P.C. gives the details of the matter which are required to be specified 'as fairly and accurately as possible' when the sale proclamation is made. Among the items which are required to be specified 'the upset price fixed by the Court' was introduced by way of local amendment in Madras as Cl.(d-1). Two provisos have now been added when the Civil Procedure Code was extensively amended by Act 104 of 1976. The two Provisos read as follows :-

"......Provided that where notice of the date for settling the terms of the proclamation has been given to the judgement-debtor by means of an order under R.54, it shall not be necessary to give notice under this rule to the judgement-debtor unless the court otherwise directs; Provided further, that nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring the Court to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value of the property, but the proclamation shall include the estimate, if any, given, by either or both of the parties." *

5. The second proviso provided that the provisions of O.21, R.66, C.P.C. should not be construed as requiring the Court to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value of the property but the proclamation had to include the estimate, if any, given, by either or both of the parties. Undoubtedly, the first part of the second proviso indicates that it was not obligatory on the part of the Court to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value of the property. Whether this had the effect of rendering ineffective Cl.(d-1) which was introduced by way of local amendment does not fall for consideration.

6. The question which falls for consideration in this case is whether the executing court was justified in reducing the upset price to Rs. 10,000. It can hardly be disputed that where the court has the power to fix an upset price, it has also the power to reduce it. It has also been so held in A.U. Natarajan v. Indian Bank, M